The GOP Civil War

[Henrin]

lol...I read FreeRepublic posts all the time. The plan there seems to be to purge the "establishment" from the party. Root them out, one by one, I guess.

I wonder if anyone over there has thought through just what that will leave them with. A party of hateful racists with no clue on how to win a general election?

Trying to purge a party of bad influences that ignored their base takes time and is extremely risky.

 

[calamity]

I thought the democrat civil war was more entertaining.

A bunch of socialists trying to get a win. Failed attempt is all it was.

 

[calamity]

So assuming I was voted in office the democrats would welcome me in their party? I doubt that. In fact, I would probably be shunned and when my reelection came up they would probably work against me.

Knowing you by your posts...you'd be like David Duke trying to run D. Of course none of them would vote for you.

 

[Henrin]

A bunch of socialists trying to get a win. Failed attempt is all it was.

So do democrats not accept socialists? It seems to me that you guys have a good bit in common. :shrug: In fact, looking at that democratic socialist platform there is a good bit in there that I see being proposed or pushed for by Hillary.

 

[jonny5]

Bullets aren't flying, at least not yet. But, we definitely have an all out war in the GOP. I imagine this will not end well.

GOP's long-simmering civil war breaks into the open - CNNPolitics.com



Meanwhile in Kansas, it just got real.



What happened? I still remember the old Reagan edict, "Thou shall not speak ill of Republicans." lol....I guess they buried that back when they buried Ron-Ron.

Civil War is good. It will hopefully result in a more unified party by driving out either those who arent Republicans, or by reforming the party to a more consistent ideology. I wish the Dems would do the same thing, but they seem to be more about loyalty over principles.

 

[calamity]

Trying to purge a party of bad influences that ignored their base takes time and is extremely risky.

A base that has slid too far Right is not how to build a winning Party. Dems moving to the Center is a much better strategy. That's why Bernie got blasted by the DNC. They knew his extreme Leftism was bad for business.

 

[Henrin]

Knowing you by your posts...you'd be like David Duke trying to run D. Of course none of them would vote for you.

Dude, don't compare me to David Duke. That's not only insulting, but flat out ridiculous.

 

[calamity]

Civil War is good. It will hopefully result in a more unified party by driving out either those who arent Republicans, or by reforming the party to a more consistent ideology. I wish the Dems would do the same thing, but they seem to be more about loyalty over principles.

Dems are smart to capture the Center while the GOP fights to see who is far enough to the Right to not be labeled RINO. It's dumb, but it's what the GOP is all about today.

 

[jonny5]

lol...I read FreeRepublic posts all the time. The plan there seems to be to purge the "establishment" from the party. Root them out, one by one, I guess.

I wonder if anyone over there has thought through just what that will leave them with. A party of hateful racists with no clue on how to win a general election?

Whats wrong with that? If thats what they want to be then thats what they should be. It basically describes the Democrat party around 1860.

 

[polgara]

The story behind Tim Huelskamp shows bare the division inside the party. Huelskamp a conservative that fought against cronyism, illegal immigration was disliked by the Chamber of Commerce and establishment type Republicans. So the House backed a wealthy no name candidate to challenge Huelskamp. The Chamber of Commerce poured millions into his opponent's coffers. They trashed Huelskamp with deceitful ads. Huelskamp did not have the funds to fight back.

Huelskamp isn't the only Constitutionalist conservative the Chamber of Commerce along with the House leadership have targeted this primary. They did the same thing to Cane in Georgia and are doing the same to Bongino in Florida. They don't want Constitutionalist Conservatives in the party.

Personally, I think it is time for Conservatives to split from the GOP instead of fighting with the establishment. Spend their energy building their new party offering a message of hope and solutions. Let Republicans and Democrats remain the uni-party with one side thinking they can do the same thing only better than the other.

Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:

:agree: :thumbs: Good to see you back fighting - I've missed you!

Off topic, but have you heard from SmartMouthWoman? With all the mess going on in Austin, I hope she is okay! :shock:

 

[ocean515]

lol...I read FreeRepublic posts all the time. The plan there seems to be to purge the "establishment" from the party. Root them out, one by one, I guess.

I wonder if anyone over there has thought through just what that will leave them with. A party of hateful racists with no clue on how to win a general election?

:applaud

A party of hateful racists?

How pathetic do minions have to be? The only ones buying this rhetoric are the pound puppies instructed to bark at the next whistle.

It's amazing to me to witness the total destruction of the Democratic Party as they lurch about, desperate to find something to counter reality with. All that is left is name calling.

And that represents values and qualities anyone should be proud of?

I guess when devoid of any vision, the status quo can only call the opposition names, since there is nothing else to tap in to.

 

[jonny5]

Dems are smart to capture the Center while the GOP fights to see who is far enough to the Right to not be labeled RINO. It's dumb, but it's what the GOP is all about today.

Why is it dumb? Because they cant win the Presidency? So what? If we could get the Dems to stop being sheep, we would have a better country, and there would be more than two parties and they would be forced to work together. Republicans are doing the RIGHT thing by finally putting principle ahead of power.

 

[eohrnberger]

Da Nile runs deep over there. Doesn't it?

No, not really.

Yes, the GOP has some challenges before it, as does the candidate. Whether they'll be able to overcome these challenges or not is yet to be seen.

The DNC and it's candidate have similar, but different challenges before them as well. Whether they'll be able to overcome their challenges or not is also yet to be seen.

The things that I listed about the DNC are in fact factual. To deny this, is Da Nile running deep within you.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

So do democrats not accept socialists? It seems to me that you guys have a good bit in common. :shrug: In fact, looking at that democratic socialist platform there is a good bit in there that I see being proposed or pushed for by Hillary.

The only good form of Socialism is the Libertarian variety.

 

[calamity]

Dude, don't compare me to David Duke. That's not only insulting, but flat out ridiculous.

Comments you've made here in the past indicate that, to the average reader, you two are not all that far apart. Your position on letting born babies starve while throwing aborting women in jail pretty much seals the deal there. The party is aiming to be Centrist, not draconian.

 

[Patrickt]

Da Nile runs deep over there. Doesn't it?

When you have nothing intelligent to say, be cutsie.
"Bullets aren't flying, at least not yet. But, we definitely have an all out war in the GOP. I imagine this will not end well."

Oh, bullets aren't flying....yet. Isn't that sweet. Liberals are so committed to purges and violence they can't imagine anything else.

We're faced with two unacceptable choices for President being offered by the Democrats and the Republicans, although both candidates are Democrats, and cutsie wins the day.

 

[calamity]

Why is it dumb? Because they cant win the Presidency? So what? If we could get the Dems to stop being sheep, we would have a better country, and there would be more than two parties and they would be forced to work together. Republicans are doing the RIGHT thing by finally putting principle ahead of power.

Principle is stupid. Pragmatism and compromise is the name of the game.

 

[cabse5]

There are two main conservative camps, social and fiscal, with some overlap which is often called the republicant base. It is impossible to win a republicant POTUS primary without that base and impossible to win the general with the same platform used in the primary. The demorats are much better at holding their noses and just voting not republicant in the general when their candidate "moves to the middle" (drops much of what the demorat base wanted). See the Bern now smolder and simply encourage (unprincipled?) party unity while many republicant also rans do otherwise.

In 2012, Romney got 93% of the registered Republican vote and still lost to BO. Any GOP candidate for president will have to widen the tent to win a presidential election. One doesn't widen the GOP tent by kowtowing to Conservatives on issues...that makes the tent smaller.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

He was however a democrat when he was running.

He was only running to expose the corruption of the Duopoly. If he had been running to win, he would have started campaigning as early as Hillary did, that way his confirmed claims of election fraud would have held more weight.

 

[Henrin]

Comments you've made here in the past indicate that, to the average reader, you two are not all that far apart. Your position on letting born babies starve while throwing aborting women in jail pretty much seals the deal there. The party is aiming to be Centrist, not draconian.

Ummm...I'm not for banning abortion, you know. I speak against abortion because I see no reason to endorse it. As for your other claim, I support people deciding on their own to help others and endorse mutual aid societies to help towards those ends.

 

[Henrin]

Principle is stupid. Pragmatism and compromise is the name of the game.

Standing for principle is sign that someone actually believes in their words and has self respect.

 

[cabse5]

He was only running to expose the corruption of the Duopoly. If he had been running to win, he would have started campaigning as early as Hillary did, that way his confirmed claims of election fraud would have held more weight.

I disagree. My hypothesis is, for example, Trump got into the race because this economy is affecting Trump's own financial sheets in a negative way.

 

[cabse5]

More blue states are in play with Trump than with previous traditional GOP candidate for president. More traditionally and solidly Democratic voting groups are in play with Trump than with previous traditional GOP candidates.

EDIT: that's more blue states are in play with Trump

 

[Abbazorkzog]

I disagree. My hypothesis is, for example, Trump got into the race because this economy is affecting Trump's own financial sheets in a negative way.

Why do you disagree? If it weren't for Trump, Bernie would have won whether he intended to or not. If Trump's financial assets, stocks, etc are being affected negatively by the Progressive uprising, why would Bernie feel inclined to be President anyway (considering the fact it is people like Trump that Bernie was campaigning against in the first place)?

 

[ttwtt78640]

In 2012, Romney got 93% of the registered Republican vote and still lost to BO. Any GOP candidate for president will have to widen the tent to win a presidential election. One doesn't widen the GOP tent by kowtowing to Conservatives on issues...that makes the tent smaller.

Perhaps it was that "simple" 59-point economic plan and his social issue stance that kept the tent so small. Trading X% of the republicant (or demorat) base for X% of the independents is always a good deal in the general election.

Democratic, Republican Identification Near Historical Lows